5. Appeal Front Yard Variance: 361 Deerfoot Trail, Scott Wirth.CITY OF
;�, CHANAASSEN
BOA DATE: 5/20/97 --�—�
CC DATE: 6/9,
6/23/97
CASE #: 97 -3
STAFF, REPORT
7
Z
J
i
PROPOSAL: A request for a 1.6 foot variance for the construction of a deck.
LOCATION: 361 Deerfoot Trail
(Lot 8, Block 1, Sunny Slope Addition)
APPLICANT: Scott Wirth
361 Deerfoot Trail
Chanhassen, MN 55317
PRESENT ZONING: PUD R, Planned Unit Development Residential
ACREAGE: Approximately 12,000 sq. $. (.29 Acres)
DENSITY: N/A
J
7
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USES:
WATER AND SEWER:
RSF, Residential Single Family
A -2, Agricultural Estate District
Available to the site
PHYSICAL CHARACTER: The site contains an existing single - family residence and a
drainage easement.
2000 LAND USE PLAN: Low Density Residential
I
I
,
-Blurs
Creek
le
Park
I
I V
Lake
Riley `.
0
'ED VARIANCE;
U
r Rice
T — 7
Wirth Variance
May 20, 1997
Page 2
On June 9, 1997 the City Council reviewed and tabled this application. A variance requires 3
affirmative votes in order for it to receive approval. The City Attorney informed the
applicant that the vote would have to be unanimous as only 3 Council members were present.
The applicant was given the option of tabling this item so that the full Council may vote at the
June 23, 1997 meeting. No changes have been made to the staff report.
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Section 20 -615 of the City Code requires all structures to maintain a minimum of a thirty (30) foot
setback from the front and the rear property lines (Attachment 2).
Section 20 -908 of the City Code states that unenclosed decks may project five (5) feet into a
required yard (Attachment 3).
BACKGROUND
The applicant is requesting a 1.6 foot variance to construct a deck on the rear of an existing home.
City Code permits a deck to project 5 feet into a required yard. This property has double street
frontage. The residence is setback 20 feet from Deerfoot Trail and 33 feet from Lake Riley
Boulevard. The lot is located in a planned unit development which permitted a 20 foot front yard
setback along Deerfoot Trail, but required a 30 foot setback along Lake Riley Boulevard. The lot is
approximately 110 feet in depth and 115 feet in width.
Sunny Slope Addition was developed in the late 1970s and early 80s. The developer granted a
large drainage easement on the subject property to comply with Watershed District requirements for
runoff sedimentation. In 1989, the City constructed a pond in this easement as part of a
maintenance project on Lake Riley because it was not constructed as part of the subdivision
development. During that same year, the applicant constructed the residence that exists on the
property.
ANALYSIS
The applicant believes that without the additional 60 + sq. ft. the deck will be useless. The site plan
shows that the deck wraps around the rear of the home to the eastern side. (Note: The deck will
not cause the removal of the tree in the rear yard). There are two sets of stairs which provide access
to the deck. The proposed deck will be approximately 580 sq. ft. with the variance, and will still be
over 500 sq. ft. without the variance.
According to the applicant, the smaller deck will cause an undue hardship. An undue hardship
means that property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings,
shape or topography. The real issue is that the applicant has a reasonable opportunity to construct a
Wirth Variance
May 20, 1997
Page 3
deck while meeting the setback requirements. Staff believes that the smaller deck will be just as
functional as the proposal and will allow the applicant complete use and enjoyment of the property.
The inability to construct a 580 sq. ft deck is not a hardship.
Staff surveyed the remaining 11 properties in this subdivision and found that all decks meet current
setback requirements. The applicant contends that several of the properties along Lake Riley have
received variances. This is true, however, this request cannot be compared to those properties
located on Lake Riley as that development predates the zoning ordinance. This request should only
be compared to the properties within this subdivision.
The drainage easement is not the origin of the hardship. The home plan and size of the lot make it
difficult to locate a deck in the rear yard. Even though the residence is located 20 feet from
Deerfoot Trail, it is only 33 feet from the property line which abuts Lake Riley Boulevard. The
style of home, with the protruding garage, makes it difficult to have ample room for a deck on the
rear of the home, even without the easement. However, the applicant does have an opportunity to
construct a large deck in the eastern portion of the property. The applicant has stated that the
easement is constricting the stairs on the western side. The applicant is not required to have stairs
at that location because this is not the main entrance to the home.
Although this request is small in terms of measurement, staff believes that the applicant can make a
reasonable use of the property without a variance. This property was developed for a single - family
home. The subject property does have a single family home with a double garage. It is not a
hardship if the property does not have a deck. The applicant believes that the deck will be unusable
without the additional 1.6 feet, meanwhile staff believes that the deduction of 60 + sq. ft. will not
prohibit the applicant from enjoying the deck.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS UPDATE
The Board reviewed this application at the May 20, 1997 meeting. The application was
unanimously denied by the Board. The members failed to find a hardship and believed that the
applicant can redesign the deck to accommodate the stairs without the variance.
At the meeting, staff stated that the southern set of stairs is causing the need for a variance. The
applicant is proposing to construct two sets of stairs, one of which is located within the buildable
area. If the applicant needs access to the yard from the deck, then one set of stairs should suffice.
Staff would like to bring to the Council's attention that we have received a second variance within
the same subdivision as the subject property. Approving this application will create new standards
for this subdivision and set the stage for the proliferation of variances within a neighborhood that
currently meets all ordinance requirements.
Wirth Variance
May 20, 1997
Page 4
One issue that was raised at the meeting, that does not pertain to this variance, was in regard to the
catch basin which is located in the drainage easement. The applicant stated that this is a potential
hazard for small children. Councilmember Berquist directed staff to investigate the safety of the
catch basin. The engineering department was made aware of the applicant's concern and is
replacing the grate in mid -June with one of low capacity. This will still allow water to pass
through, yet will offer more protection against accidents. Staff is not aware of any accidents or
problems with the existing catch basin.
FINDINGS
The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a
variance unless they find the following facts:
a. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause undue hardship. Undue hardship
means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical
surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of
comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a
proliferation of variances, but to recognize that there are pre- existing standards in this
neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre- existing standards without departing
downward from them meet this criteria.
Finding: Staff believes that the easement does not create a hardship nor does a hardship
exist. The applicant was aware of the easement prior to construction of this home. If a
hardship truly exists, then the home would have not been built. The style of the home, that
the applicant is responsible for, leaves little room for a deck on the rear of the home. The
applicant does have a reasonable opportunity to construct and enjoy a deck. Many of the
homes in this subdivision have decks and they all meet ordinance requirements. The
size of the lot does not meet the requirements of the ordinance, but this property was
developed as a planned unit development. The PUD allowed 20 foot setbacks along
Deerfoot Trail on all 12 lots. This was may ha be permitted to protect the rear of the
residence from Lake Riley Boulevard because the lots are non - conforming in depth.
Approving the variance would defeat the purpose of the reduced front yard setback.
Additionally, if the setback had not been reduced this home would probably have not been
built on this site. Approving this variance request will depart from pre- existing standards in
this neighborhood as all of the homes in this subdivision meet ordinance requirements.
b. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to
other property within the same zoning classification.
Finding: The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable,
generally, to other property within the same zoning classification.
Wirth Variance
May 20, 1997
Page 5
C. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income
potential of the parcel of land.
Finding: The purpose of the variation does not appear to be based upon a desire to increase
the value or income potential of the parcel of land. However, the applicant did state in the
attached letter that this variance would improve the property value of this home as well
those in the surrounding area.
d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self - created hardship.
Finding: Staff believes the hardship is self - created. The applicant knew prior to
constructing the home that a drainage easement was located on the property. The applicant
was also aware of the size of the lot and is responsible for the style of the home and its
location.
e. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to
other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located.
Finding: The granting of the variance could be detrimental to the public welfare. If the
variance is approved, the applicant will be allowed to encroach further into the setback that
abuts a public street. Staff is concerned with the distance the deck will be from Lake Riley
Boulevard.
f. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger
of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values
within the neighborhood.
Finding: The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to
adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase
the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property
values within the neighborhood.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motion:
"The City Council denies the request for a 1.6 foot variance based upon the findings presented in
the staff report and the following:
Wirth Variance
May 20, 1997
Page 6
1. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship that would warrant the granting of a
variance.
2. The applicant has a reasonable opportunity to construct and enjoy a deck."
ATTACHMENTS
1. Application and Letter
2. Section 20 -615, Lot requirements and setbacks
3. Section 20 -908, Yard regulations
4. Site Plan
5. Deck Elevation
6. Property Owners
7. Appeal Letter
8. Minutes from the May 20, 1997 Board of Adjustments and Appeals Meeting
9. Minutes from the June 9, 1997 City Council Meeting
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(612) 937 -1900
r'"CftY OF CHRNMA.y��N
APRA81 V%97
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
APPLICANT: c,
Tr ItiP I r `f'1'2- OWNER: �ce ` t',1 r `�C•.
ADDRESS: "� r i� , e- f . 2- 7 '� -j 1 1--
TELEPHONE (Day time) S `/ ' 7 5
ADDRESS: 3a 1 E� P r - fin �" -f r► L
TELEPHONE: YV5 -7 It
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Conditional Use Permit
Interim Use Permit
Non - conforming Use Permit
Planned Unit Development'
Rezoning
_ Temporary Sales Permit
Vacation of ROW /Easements
Variance
Wetland Alteration Permit
Zoning Appeal
Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Sign Permits
Sign Plan Review
Notification Sign
Site Plan Review"
Subdivision`
X Escrow for Filing Fees /Attomey Cost"
($50 CUP /SPRNACNAR/WAP/Metes
and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB)
TOTAL FEE $
A Test of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the
application.
Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews.
Twenty -six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 8'/2' X 11" reduced copy of
transparency for each plan sheet.
Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract
N0TE -1Nhen multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
'RDJECT NAME 911'r IC
.00ATION D - f - d r, f Tr o .G C k 't K A r s aH 1h Al 5
.EGAL DESCRIPTION _ /- '0 �- 9 , l3l a 1 c 1 S y n txo S / & D 4L Ad d , fie ,
c cc r t. i �•
'OTALACREAGE
M TLANDS PRESENT YES NO
RESENTZONING
MUESTED ZONING
'RESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION
EQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION
EASON FOR THIS REQUEST
ed -e ct 4y vun
e, •. n 4
d p : R 1 x A -V
ci rtst / S -�-.? �; 4
O (-
/ D
Lt r, // 6 Jsv� -
�j v %e #--
his application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information
nd plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning
epartment to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application.
determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written
Dtice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application.
his is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with
II City requirements with regard to this request This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom
ie City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership
tither copy of Owners Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person
make Phis application and the fee owner has also signed this application.
will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further
iderstand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any
thorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of
y knowledge.
he city hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing
�quirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day
derision for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review
densions are approved by the applicant
ig re of Applicant Date
9nature of Fee Owner Date
ppTxation Received on 4 I I IG Fee Paid �D / ' CC) Receipt No. /
ie applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting.
, ot contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address.
Scott A. Wirth
361 Deerfoot Trail
Chanhassen, MN 55317
April 18, 1997
City of Chanhassen
The Board of Adjustments and Appeals
690 Coulter Drive
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear Board of Adjustments and Appeals:
I am requesting a variance for a property line set -back of 23'.36" instead of the normal 25' for the
construction of an unenclosed deck.
1. The literal enforcement of the Ordinance would cause hardship and practical difficulty because without
the additional space the deck would resemble more of a hallway, instead of a workable deck. This space
would be limited strictly to walking. It would be impossible to have a simple table and chairs in this area.
The value of the deck, and thus, the home would be reduced. The value difference between 8' and 10' in
decking area is immense.
2. Special conditions are present on this property. A storm -sewer draining easement exist immediately to
the west of the property which requires building stairs beginning 8' in from the south -west corner of the
deck, down to a platform and then north to a porch area. The standard width of the stairs is 42" , thus less
than 5 ` deck width would be present in this area. The backdoor to the house is located in this area.
Building the stairs in this fashion is needed to remain out of the easement area which is my property, but
controlled by the City of Chanhassen. Please see the attached drawings and the pictures of the easement.
3. The additional square footage of the deck that this variance would provide would help the property value
of this home as well as the value of all the homes in the area, which is needed because of the unsightly
easement area. (Again, please observe the enclosed pictures.) In addition, no existing trees or shrubbery
will need to be removed and the deck will be constructed of beautiful cedar wood.
4. When the lot was purchased in 1989, it did not look anything like it does now. It was a flat nice looking
lot. After the lot was purchased, the easement was carved out, a catch -basin and other fixtures were
installed. The easement area was on the plot, but I had no idea what was to be done with the area. I have
worked extensively with the city and Dave Hempel in attempting to keep the area looking as good as
possible. I initially seeded the area, and after flooding, the city laid sod there. I also built a small deck over
the catch basin for esthetics and also safety. Small children could easily fall into the catch -basin. I have
spent much effort and money over the years to maintain an area that I have no access to, which is 1/3 of my
property. Without the easement, the house could have been laid -out in a manner that would have provided
more room at the back of the house for decking.
5. The variance will not affect the welfare of the nearby residents in anyway. Many of the homes in the area
already are much closer to the road behind my house than what is intended for the deck. The front side of
homes directly across the street are less than 20 feet from the street. I am asking for an unenclosed deck to
be 331/2 feet.
Thank you for your time in this matter. If you have any questions I can be reached at 445 -7811, or 854-
7568.
Sincerely,
Scott Wirth
Enclosure:
C;k,ttCAc� rynr_r�
ZONING § 20 -613
Sea 20 -596. Interim uses.
The following are interim uses in the RR" District:
(1) Commercial kennels and stables.
(Ord. No. 120, § 3, 2- 12 -90)
Editor's note — Inasmuch as there exists a § 20 -595, the provisions added by § 3 of Ord.
No. 120 as § 20 -595 have been redesignated as § 20 -596.
Secs. 20- 597 -20 -610. Reserved.
ARTICLE XII. 'RSF' SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
Sea 20 -611. Intent.
The intent of the "RSF" District is to provide for single- family residential subdivisions.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 5(5 -5 -1), 12- 15 -86)
Sec. 20 -612. Pe ted uses.
_ * V
owing uses are permitted in an "RSF" District:
(1) Single - family dwellings.
(2) Public and private open space.
(3) State - licensed day care center for twelve (12) or fewer children.
(4) State - licensed group home serving six (6) or fewer persons.
(5) Utility services.
(6) Temporary real estate office and model home.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 5(5 -5 -2), 12- 15 -86)
Sea 20 -613. Permitted accessory uses.
The following are permitted accessory uses in an "RSF" District:
(1) Garage.
(2) Storage building.
(3) Swimming pool.
(4) Tennis court.
(5) Signs.
(6) Home occupations.
(7) One (1) dock.
(8) Private kennel.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 5(5 -5 -3), 12- 15 -86)
Supp. No. 8 1209
§ 20-614
CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
Sec. 20 -614. Conditional uses.
The following are conditional uses in an "RSF" District:
(1) Churches.
(2) Reserved.
(3) Recreational beach lots.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 5(5 -5.4), 12- 15 -86; Ord. No. 120, § 4(4), 2- 12 -90)
State law reference — Conditional uses, M.S. § 462.3595.
Sec. 20 -615. Lot requirements and setbacks.
The following minimum requirements shall be observed in an "RSF" District subject to
additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in this chapter and chapter 18:
(1) The minimum lot area is fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet. For neck or flag lots,
the lot area requirements shall be met after the area contained within the "neck" has
been excluded from consideration.
(2) The minimum lot frontage is ninety (90) feet, except that lots fronting on a cul -de -sac
"bubble" or along the outside curve of curvilinear street sections shall be ninety (90)
feet in width at the building setback line. The location of this lot is conceptually
illustrated below.
Lots Where Frontage is
Measured At 8etbaok Line
� 1 .
y� •
0
L
(3) The minimum lot depth is one hundred twenty -five (125) feet. The location of these
lots is conceptually illustrated below. Lot width on neck or flag lots and lots accessed
by private driveways shall be one hundred (100) feet as measured at the front building
Supp. No. 8 1210
ZONING
setback line.
. Neck / Flap Lots
Fron Lot Line
t OO *'Lot Width
� I i
L _ L...._!_ J
§ 20 -615
(4) The maximum lot coverage for all structures and paved surfaces is twenty -five (25)
percent.
(5) The setbacks are as follows:
a. For front yards, thirty (30) feet.
b. For rear yards, thirty (30) feet.
c. For side yards, ten (10) feet.
(6) The setbacks for lots served by private driveways and/or neck lots are as follows:
• a. For front yard, thirty (30) feet. The front yard shall be the lot line nearest the
public right -of -way that provides access to the parcel. The rear yard lot line is to
be located opposite from the front lot line with the remaining exposures treated
as side lot lines. On neck lots the front yard setback shall be measured at the
point nearest the front lot line where the lot achieves a one- hundred -foot
minimum width.
b. For rear yards, thirty (30) feet.
c. For side yards, ten (10) feet.
(7) The maximum height is as follows:
a. For the principal structure, three (3) stories /forty (40) feet.
b. For accessory structures, twenty (20) feet.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 5(5 -5 -5), 12- 15 -86; Ord. No. 90, § 1, 3- 14 -88; Ord. No. 127, § 3, 3- 26 -90;
Ord. No. 145, § 2, 4 -8 -91; Ord. No. 240, § 18, 7- 24 -95)
Editor's note — Section 2 of Ord. No. 145 purported to amend § 20- 615(6)b. pertaining to
accessory structures; such provision were contained in § 20- 615(7)b., subsequent to amend-
ment of the section by Ord. No. 127. Hence, the provisions of Ord. No. 145, § 2, were included
as amending § 20- 615(7)b.
Supp. No. 8 1210.1
0_t_ r6)1 rlr)� 3
ZONING § 20.908
increased in width or depth by an additional foot over the side and rear yards required
for the highest building otherwise permitted in the district.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. VI, § 10, 12- 15 -86)
Sec. 20.908. Yard regulations.
The following requirements qualify or supplement district regulations. Yard measure-
ments shall be taken from the nearest point of the wall of a building to the lot line in question,
subject to the following qualifications:
(1) Every part of a required yard or court shall be open and unobstructed.
(2) A yard, court, or other open space of one (1) building used to comply with the provi-
sions of this chapter shall not again be used as a yard, court, or other open space for
another building.
(3) Except as provided in the business, industrial, and office districts, the front yard
setback requirements shall be observed on each street side of a corner lot; provided,
however, that the remaining two (2) yards will meet the side yard setbacks.
(4) On double frontage lots, the required front yard shall be provided on both streets.
Whenever possible, structures should face the existing street.
(5) The following shall not be considered to be obstructions:
a. Into any required front yard, or required side yard adjoining a side street lot line,
cornices, canopies, eaves, or other architectural features may project a distance
not exceeding two (2) feet, six (6) inches; fire escapes may project a distance not
exceeding four (4) feet, six (6) inches; an uncovered stair and necessary landings
may project a distance not to exceed six (6) feet, provided such stair and landing
shall not extend above the entrance floor of the building; bay windows, balconies,
open porches and chimneys may project a distance not exceeding three (3) feet;
unenclosed decks and patios may project a distance not exceeding five (5) feet and
shall not be located in a drainage and utility easement. Other canopies may be
permitted by conditional use permit.
b. The above -named features may project into any required yard adjoining an inte-
rior lot line, subject to the limitations cited above.
c. Porches that encroach into the required front yard and which were in existence
on February 19, 1987 may be enclosed or completely rebuilt in the same location
provided that any porch that is to be completely rebuilt must have at least a
ten -foot minimum front yard.
d. Subject to the setback requirements in section 20.904, the' following are per-
mitted in the rear yard: enclosed or open off-street parking spaces; accessory
structures, toolrooms, and similar buildings or structures for domestic storage.
Balconies, breezeways and open.porches, unenclosed decks and patios, and one -
story bay windows may project into the rear yard a distance not to exceed five (5)
feet.
Supp. N o. 6 1233
(88o z ) DENOTES EXISTING ELEVATION
8131.z.) DENOTES PROPOSED ELEVATION
INDICATES DIRECTION OF SURFACE DRAINAGI
891,50 = FINISHED GARAGE FLOOR ELEVATION
((� =873 BASEMENT FLOOR ELEVATION
r
061 = TOP OF BLOCK ELEVATION
gc.4a : / = 90
CliiWQ FC819iYgHf RJ
WECE tM
1APR 181W
C�M+AssE% �WDFPT
`e7`7 88.
� r
oovb
en
g2,
�3g Y
8
8 A !9
�` o w• 9 ° .sus - 3, � � Fas L 2 s
• � M �J• / � 68j 3 83 V
-So
o \ des
W WlUA 6E AND ' >o,co ` � � �`,�'�� •:' 'C �.�
0 - IL 1 64.5MENT
�..►t�
P �
ZO-
N 04 v w�
)I hereby certif that this is a ttue and correct teptescitlaliort of a tract of la it d as shnwtt
and desctibed hereon. As ptepated by me on thin 77" day o1 AU6U4,T ,19 R9 .
f u'f� Minn, rleg.
n Works (R), Knox Lumber, # 217, Phone # 933 -1046
Apr 0711:29:191997
materials in this deck will cost $5053.29
Price does not include any Special Order Items.
ID: CQ4338
iew
G� — tuc) - r 157-- .
MEETING RESCHEDULED
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS
AND APPEALS
Tuesday, May 20, 1997
at 6:00 p.m.
City Hall - 690 Coulter Drive
Courtyard Conference Room
SUBJECT: Rear Yard Setback Variance
APPLICANT: Scott Wirth
LOCATION: 361 Deerfoot Trail
. Z4 0
4
NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The
applicant, Scott Wirth , is requesting a 1.6 foot variance to the 25 foot rear yard setback
to allow the construction of a deck on property zoned RSF and located at 361 Deerfoot Trail.
What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the
developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the
meeting, the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps:
1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project.
2. The Developer will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The commission will then
make a recommendation to the City Council.
Questions and Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City
Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. if you wish to talk to
someone about this project, please contact Cindy at 937 -1900 ext. 117. If you choose to
submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting.
Staff will provide copies to the Commission.
Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on May 15, 1997.
3REN BROS. GREGORY L & KELLY R HASTINGS JOY A SMITH
WAYZATA BLVD. 9217 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9243 LAKE RILEY BLVD
ATA, MN 55391 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
PORTER DENNIS R & ANN BAKER LUCILLE LOUISE REMUS
;IOWA TRL 9219 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9245 LAKE RILEY BLVD
iASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
-D & KATHRYN SITTER EUNICE ELIZABETH KOTTKE CATHY HARGREAVES
AKE RILEY BLVD 9221 LAKE RILEY BLVD 300 DEERFOOT TRL
iASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
r A & HARRIET F BERSHAW ALAN & KAREN DIRKS ROBERT D & KRISTIN S REBERTUS
IOWA TRL 331 DEERFOOT TRL 320 DEERFOOT TRL
iASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
PEMRICKJR & DAVID DUHAIME PAMELA N GUYER
IOWA TRL 4401 COUNTRY CLUB RD 340 DEERFOOT TRL
iASSEN, MN 55317 EDINA, MN 55424 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
F & PATRICIA M DOLEJSI RONALD YTZEN ROBERT MURRAY
IOWA TRL 9227 LAKE RILEY BLVD 360 DEERFOOT TRL
iASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
W & KATHRYN HALVERSON FREDERICK POTTHOFF III & KEVIN M & LINDA P SHARKEY
IOWA TRL 9231 LAKE RILEY BLVD 380 DEERFOOT TRL
iASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
i & KAREN L DIRKS JOHN W ARDOYNO PAUL E & GAIL A TERRY
4KE RILEY BLVD 9235 LAKE RILEY BLVD 400 DEERFOOT TRL
iASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
D G SAPP & DIANE K TAYLOR PAUL KENT OLSON RICHARD R & JILL M MADORE
4KE RILEY BLVD. 9239 LAKE RILEY BLVD 381 DEERFOOT TRL
iASSEN. MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
3 G KRIER SUNNYSLOPE HOMEOWNERS ASSN SCOTT ALAN WIRTH
4KE RILEY BLVD 341 DEERFOOT TRL 361 DEERFOOT TRL
iASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
STEVEN A & PATRICIA A SEKELY
341 DEERFOOT TRL
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
ROBERT EVANS
331 DEERFOOT TRL
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
KENTTAGE RAMLIDEN &
321 DEERFOOT TRL
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
DALE B & DIANE KUTTER
301 DEERFOOT TRL
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
Y,,-exert '7
K � r G �1 0 •t
CG.a,*"s sZen
.5/z7Ig
Sys -�Yi�
r.J�
Board of Adjustments and Appeals Meeting Minutes
May 20, 1997
Page 3
A REQUEST FOR A 1.6 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE FRONT YARD SETBACK
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK SCOTT WIRTH 361 DEERFOOT TRAIL.
Cynthia Kirchoff presented the staff report.
Scott Wirth stated that he needs this variance as the difference between an 8 foot deck and a 10
foot is immense. He stated that the drainage easement is causing the steps to be smaller. He
stated that the neighbor's deck does not meet the setback.
Kirchoff stated that all of the properties in that subdivision do meet the setbacks.
Berquist stated that the deck should be redesigned so that the stairs fit between the easement and
the deck.
Scott Wirth stated that the railing and the decking will be in the setback but the posts will not.
He stated that the lumber is only available in the 10 foot length. He stated that his lot is only 113
feet deep.
Sharmin Al -Jaff stated that all of the lots in the Sunny Slope subdivision have 20 foot front yard
setbacks because the lot depths do not conform to the ordinance. She said that the reduced front
yard setback was permitted to allow a larger buildable area on these parcels.
Wirth stated that many of the homes in the area have variances and that his deck will be 33 feet
from the Lake Riley Boulevard.
Watson asked if the applicant constructed this home.
Wirth stated that he did, but at that time he did not have the money to construct a deck. He stated
that his builder did not inform him that a deck would require a variance.
Berquist asked if they had changed the shape of the easement.
Wirth stated that they had with his consent and without compensation. He stated that the catch
basin in the easement is dangerous to small children. Berquist directed staff to research this
issue.
Watson stated that this deck is very large and that there has to be a better design with the amount
of buildable area.
Al -Jaff stated that it is not a hardship not to have two sets of stairs on a deck.
Board of Adjustments and Appeals Meeting Minutes
May 20, 1997
Page 4
Watson stated that the applicant has an ample opportunity to construct a deck on this property.
Berquist moved, Watson seconded the motion to deny a 1.6 foot variance for the construction of
a deck. The motion carried with a vote of 3 to 0.
A REOUEST FOR AN 8.5 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE FRONT YARD
SETBACKFOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN OPEN PORCH, KEN AND TONI
LUCAS, 6735 NEZ PERCE DRIVE.
Cynthia Kirchoff presented that staff report.
Ken Lucas stated that the house is currently very plain and they would like to beautify it . He
stated that water problems are causing them to add a porch on to the front of their residence.
Toni Lucas stated that the style of the storm door increases the heat in the home during the
summer.
Al -Jaff stated that Mayor Mancino directed staff to investigate porch encroachments. She stated
that this will have to be done is a zoning ordinance amendment format and that staff has started
preliminary investigations. Al -Jaff said that the next step would be to present it to the Planning
Commission and City Council as an issue paper and if they felt comfortable with it, staff will
develop the ordinance. She also emphasized that the Planning Commission and City Council has
not reviewed this proposal and that staff believes the recommendation would be to allow porches
to encroach 10 feet into a front yard setback. Al -Jaff said that even if this ordinance was in
place, the applicant would still need a variance.
Berquist stated that this will improve the front entry of the residence. He stated that it is a
hardship if the front door is not usable.
Johnson stated that he changed his mind because the front elevation will make the home look
better.
Berquist moved, Johnson seconded the motion to approve an 8.5 foot variance from the front
yard setback for the construction of a porch with the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall provide a registered land survey of the property or at a minimum, have a
registered land surveyor locate the front property line in the field.
2. The applicant shall be aware that the variance was approved strictly for the construction of an
open porch. Any further additions or alterations to the front of the residence shall require a
separate variance application.
City Council Meeting - June 9, 1997
that 100% of the funds raised at this activity will be going to city programs or to pay costs
associated with generating those charitable funds, the City Council approve a one day off -site
gambling permit for the Chanhassen Lions Club on Thursday, July 3' at Chanhassen's Annual 4`
of July celebration. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
APPEAL DECISION OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS FOR A FRONT
YARD VARIANCE REQUEST, 361 DEERFOOT TRAIL, SCOTT WIRTH.
Cynthia Kirchoff: Thank you. This item appeared before the Board of Adjustments at the last meeting,
the May 20 meeting, and the Board of Adjustments unanimously denied the request. They felt that the
applicant could redesign the stairs as to not constrict the rest of the deck. The applicant is requesting a
variance to construct a deck in the rear of the existing home. The deck will be located approximately 23
feet from the property line that abuts Lake Riley Boulevard. This is a double frontage lot so the variance
is technically from a front yard, even though it is the rear of the home. Staff has calculated the deck to be
approximately 580 square feet, with the variance. The applicant has two sets of stairs on the deck and
two sets of stairs are not required. One set is not even required because it's not the main entrance to the
home. The applicant contends that the drainage easement which is located on this portion of the lot is
constricting his stair making this rear part of the deck smaller. Staff surveyed the remaining 11
properties in the subdivision, Sunnyslope Addition, and found that they all meet current ordinance
requirements for setbacks. And I believe the majority of them did have decks in the rear yard. Staff
believes that the applicant has reasonable opportunity to construct a deck and use and enjoy it while
maintaining the existing setbacks. And that a hardship has not been proven. Also staff believes that
approving this variance could lead to altering existing standards within that subdivision and may lead to a
proliferation of variances in this subdivision. Therefore staff recommends denial of the 1.6 foot variance
request. Thank you.
Acting Mayor Mason: Thank you. Before I ask the applicant to come up and state their case, does
Council have any questions for staff at this point?
Councilman Berquist: That entire subdivision was a PUD so there were some conditions applied to the
PUD that were different than normal platting. Lot width, depth.
Cynthia Kirchoff: Yes.
Acting Mayor Mason: Councilman Senn, any questions?
Councilman Senn: Not at this time, no.
Roger Knutson: Mayor?
Acting Mayor Mason: Yes.
Roger Knutson: I'd just point out that this requires three affirmative votes. If you want to grant the
variance, it requires three affirmative votes. Majority of the entire Council. One person saying no
tonight.
Councilman Berquist: Does one person, just out of curiosity, for informational purposes, if one person
says no and it goes down in flames, can they reappeal?
City Council Meeting - June 9, 1997
Roger Knutson: No.
Councilman Berquist: You could not?
Roger Knutson: One alternative open to you, if you wanted to do it. It's not required. If you find
yourself with a split vote up here, you could table it until the other two absent Council members return.
Councilman Senn: Well if it requires three votes of the Council, it would seem to me that's the decision
we should leave up to the applicant.
Acting Mayor Mason: Well that was going to be.
Councilman Senn: If they want to wait.
Acting Mayor Mason: Right. That was going to be my next question. Do you understand what we said
here?
Scott Wirth: Yes.
Acting Mayor Mason: You need 3 affirmative votes to get the appeal so that means all 3 of us have to
vote in the affirmative on this tonight and if by chance, and I have no idea at this point how the vote will
be. If one of us votes no, you're done. You're through. Now your option is to table it to wait for a full
Council where some mathematics tells me, regardless of how the three of us vote, your chances of it
being approved, I'm not saying they are but certainly mathematically they are greater. Five. It would
seem prudent, yeah. All right.
Councilman Senn: I'll move to table.
Acting Mayor Mason: Okay, the motion has been made and seconded to table request for 1.6 foot
variance on 361 Deerfoot Trail, Scott Wirth applicant.
Councilman Berquist: May I ask a question relative to this before we move on? Of the applicant. I'm
just asking the Mayor if I may ask the applicant a question.
Acting Mayor Mason: Sure.
Councilman Berquist: Was there any, has there been any redesign thought into the stairway?
Scott Wirth: About the only thing I can do is put in a spiral staircase...
Acting Mayor Mason: The motion has been made and seconded to table this to the next Council meeting
which would be June 23`
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to table an appeal to the decision of the
Board of Adjustments and Appeals for a front yard variance at 361 Deerfoot Trail, Scott Wirth.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 101,600 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE AND INDUSTRIAL BUILDING
(HEARTLAND) ON PROPOSED LOT 1, BLOCK 3, GATEWAY ADDITION; LOCATED AT